A genome study dated December 1, 2004, was carried on the BBC’s Turkish website. The report, that began with evolutionary indoctrination under the title “DNA lens on the history of evolution,” described how American scientists had studied the genome structures of certain present-day mammals. Taking the data obtained from this research as its starting point, it contained claims regarding the kind of creature the imaginary evolutionary ancestor of mammals might have been. The study, carried out by geneticists at the University of California’s Santa Cruz campus, investigated the genome structures of the following species: the pig, horse, cat, dog, bat, mouse, rabbit, gorilla, chimpanzee, and human beings.
Led by David Haussler, the researchers took an average of the structures of these creatures’ genomes and then investigated which of the genome structures they had examined most resembled the “common denominator” they had obtained. The scientists reported that the common denominator most resembled the genome structure of the mouse, and extrapolated from this to claim that the first mammal was a shrew-like creature.
By the term “the first mammal,” the researchers are referring to an imaginary creature which they assume to have emerged through evolution and to be the ancestor of all present-day mammals. It is clear, however, that this mode of thought is based solely on preconception and that the data obtained constitutes no support for the theory of evolution. Since the researchers assumed right from the outset, as a dogma, that the mammals they investigated had emerged through evolution, they interpret their common denominator as a genome resembling that of the imaginary ancestor of mammals.
Indeed, these words of Haussler’s in the article make this preconception crystal clear:
“If we find a DNA sequence in the human genome that is missing in the corresponding place in the mouse genome, we can”t tell whether that DNA was inserted in the evolution of humans from the mammalian ancestor or deleted in the evolution of mice.” 1
Although the existence of differences between human beings and the mouse in terms of a DNA sequence can be explained by these creatures having been separately created, Haussler exhibits a dogmatic perspective by saying that either the mouse lost this DNA during the evolutionary process, or else it has been inserted in the evolution of humans from the evolutionary ancestor.
Comparative genome studies of this kind provide no support for the claim that living things came into being through evolution. What actually happens is that the dogma that similarities between living things emerged through evolution is accepted as the truth right from the outset, and the similarities are then interpreted in the light of this preconception. However, studies of this kind actually say nothing about how these creatures came into existence.
For example, the same methodology can be employed with regard to various objects such as freighters, computers, hats and electric lights. One can take the common denominators of the varieties these exhibit among themselves. Then the common denominator of each group can be looked at to see which model of freighter, computer, hat and electric light it resembles. Yet that study cannot prove that the objects in question emerged through the evolution of matter and through coincidences. Similarly, evolutionist speculation based on the common denominator of similarities in mammals’ genome structures provides no evidence for Darwinism.
On the other hand, a look at the palaeontological findings regarding the origin of mammals immediately reveals the extent to which the preconceptions of the evolutionists who carried out the study in question are based on blind belief. As is the case with other living groups, the origin of mammals is incompatible with the claims of the theory of evolution. George Gaylord Simpson admitted this many years ago:
This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals … The earliest and most primitive known members of every order [of mammals] already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed … This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate… it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. 2
In short, the data obtained are interpreted by the geneticists concerned in the light of the theory of evolution, of which no trace is to be found in the fossil record and which exists only in their dreams.
The expression the “history of evolution” selected as the caption for the BBC report is a totally deceptive one, with no scientific foundation. It is clear that although the BBC has sought to give the impression with this report that the study in question has provided scientific support for Darwinism, this is an amateurish effort. We invite the BBC to abandon its blind belief in Darwinism and to put an end to the deceptive propaganda it engages in for the sake of this outdated theory.
1. Tim Stephens, “Computer analysis shows scientists could reconstruct the genome of the common ancestor of all placental mammals,” UC Santa Cruz Currents Online, 6 December 2004; http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/12-06/ancestor.asp
2. George G., Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1944, pp. 105, 107.